Accuracy in Media

When Reed Irvine started Accuracy in Media, he was hoping that the public would begin to question the sources of news and information. His mission to educate the public about liberal media bias has been so successful that, as Mike Flynn notes in a perceptive piece at Breitbart, candidates like Donald Trump and Ben Carson surge when they are attacked by the media. Many regard media attacks as proof that the candidate is saying something that is politically incorrect and therefore makes political sense.

At the National Press Club, Carson said, “I’ll tell you right off the bat, before I go any further, I’m not politically correct. I will not be politically correct. And that’s one of the reasons that a lot of the people in the press don’t like me. But it’s okay, because you know, what I really love is this country. I don’t necessarily care whether the press likes me or not. And therefore, I’m not going to conform to all their little requirements.”

He went on, “… there is only one business in America that is protected by the Constitution. And that is the press. And there was a reason for that. It was because the press was supposed to be an ally of the people. And they were supposed to expose and inform the people in a nonpartisan way. When they become partisan, which they are, they distort the system as it was supposed to work. And they allow the side that they pick to get away with all kinds of things.”

Gallup recently found that trust in the media remains at an all-time low. The percentage of Republicans who trust the media was at only 32 percent.

The media have been losing credibility on a consistent basis. Yet, the erroneous stories keep on coming, and the mass media continue to drift even further left.

It’s difficult to believe journalism could get worse than it is now. But Breitbart reporter Brandon Darby notes that the Los Angeles Times described the recent black Oregon killer at Umpqua Community College as supporting “white-supremacist causes.”

The problem for the news media and those who claim to distribute news and information goes beyond a lack of trust. They have political agendas which are becoming apparent to news consumers, who lose faith and are turned off. That’s why people applaud a figure like Trump or Carson when they mock or criticize the media.

A new film came out on October 16 that incredibly carries the title “Truth,” taking the side of former CBS newsman Dan Rather who used fake documents to smear President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential campaign. Robert Redford plays Rather.

It is as if the truth doesn’t matter, and that Redford can sell a lie to the American people in place of the truth.

The film “Trumbo” debuts in theaters on November 6 and tells the story of “alleged” communist associations by a Hollywood screenwriter who was supposedly unfairly blacklisted from working. In fact, Dalton Trumbo was a Stalinist Communist and Hitler apologist.

Some news media don’t seem to care if they are perceived as biased. For example, MSNBC aired a “global citizen” music festival to entice young people into the pro-U.N. cause.

President Obama was given sympathetic coverage for expressing outrage over the Oregon massacre, though the media were slow to cover how his administration shipped guns to Mexico which were later used to killed U.S. border agent Brian Terry in the Fast and Furious scandal. The guns were also linked to several other crimes.

Administration arms smuggling in the Middle East backfired on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state when four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Yet our media insist that Clinton came out of the recent Benghazi hearings looking better. If anything, these hearings demonstrated not only that Mrs. Clinton failed to act to save the lives of those four Americans, but that she lied in blaming the deaths on a YouTube video.

Sharyl Attkisson was essentially forced out of CBS News for being too tough on the Obama administration. Fortunately, she now has her own show, “Full Measure,” being aired nationally on stations owned or affiliated with the Sinclair Broadcast Group.

In terms of media bias that is acceptable and even celebrated, it is noteworthy that Jeffrey Toobin, the senior legal analyst for CNN and staff writer at The New Yorker, is being honored with an award by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) on November 19 in Washington, D.C. A description of the event says that Toobin, through “sharp analysis and keen insight,” has “used his platform to educate viewers about the legal rationale for fair and equal treatment of LGBT Americans and, in doing so, has helped create the political landscape that allowed recent LGBT court victories to be widely understood by the American public.”

Translated into common sense language, this means that Toobin has been pro-gay in his coverage and helped sell the public on the homosexual agenda.

The event in honor of Toobin is being co-sponsored by Comcast/NBCUniversal and CBS News. It means that although reporters sometimes talk about one another as “rivals” in the media business, they are really on the same liberal team.

The public is not fooled.

As Carson noted in his National Press Club speech, “…the good thing is that a lot of the people in America are onto them [the media] and understand what they’re trying to do. And that’s one of the reasons we’re doing well. And it seems like the more they attack me, the better we do…”

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Jerry Kenney

    The Russians killed about 200 journalists in the last 20 years. That could never happen in the U.S. because I’m not sure we have 200 journalists.

  • reggie

    Good point, they don’t exist. When the msm is controlled by 5-6 corporations, it’s not favorable to balanced reporting.

  • Realist

    I certainly appreciate anyone attempts to peel away the patina of false legitimacy accorded to Big Media, but that peeling away does nothing to unpack the real baggage of increasingly dirty, underhanded tactics used by that Big Media nor does it uncover the Ruling Class Monsters who reside in the shadows of that machinery of deception and control, pulling the strings of their journOlista and RINOLista and using the power of their money and positions to craft and ensconce false narratives and lies into the body politic every day.

    If the only problems were the journOlista and the RINOLista and their eagerness to “shape” their reports into whatever form their ideology demands, that would be an achievable objective. But the journOlista and RINOLista do, first and foremost, as their paymasters command. Those journOlista and RINOLista may comport generally with the ideological demands of their paymasters and that is why they are in those positions, but no matter how ideologically committed they may be, the pretend “journalists” of Big Media are always ready to satisfy the demands of their Ruling Class moneymasters and handlers.

    This constitutes a whole new level of deception and control than has ever existed before in this country, and it will require the exposing and detailed investigation of those paymasters and any Big Media under their control being removed from their control permanently before this country has any chance of throwing off the yoke of Ruling Class Monsters who have infested its political and media machinery.

  • Maria-Erlinda Martinez

    Monumental a piece, this is. Thank you Cliff Kincaid, for writing it, and for writing it so cogently, and factually, away from any hagiographics around Reed’s persona, for it is his keen contention about the leftist nature and operation of most of the media in America. And not just liberal is the media’s praxis, but leftist, that is, comprehending the entire spectrum of the doctrine and ideology of the entire Left, from liberalism to doctrinaire Keynesianism to fascism to social-“democracy” to “democratic”-socialism to Marxism to Leninism (and the latter’s several strains, mainly Bolshevism and Cultural Communism), and even communistic-anarchism. The media in America –at leas their majority– dwells in the entire spectrum of the entire Left, that is what Americans, finally, are in droves starting to realize. Irvin Reed was well ahead of his time; he has been vindicated, but at very high price, as the Left has driven America to the edge of the abyss. Sort of Pyrrhic victory, but it is not Irvine’s fault, but the conservative demos’, which didn’t listen to him.

  • Maria-Erlinda Martinez

    The contention of “paymasters” having some to do in the behavior of the media, particularly the leftist media, is very disputable. Of course, there must exist venality in the dominant media (i.e., the leftist media), but what drives the vast majority of them is all out leftist ideology and doctrine. Antonio Gramsci –an Italian friend of Lenin’s, and originally a Bolshevist, and then a revisionist that broke up with Bolshevism out of pure pragmatism– was the creator of the other main strain of Leninism thatt came to be known, indistinctly, as Cultural Communism, or Western Marxism, or, very accurately (deep in the non-Leninist hardcore-Left) Western Leninism. Gramsci “discovered” that Bolshevism was not going to advance in developed and semideveloped nations (although he conceded that Bolshevism had a chance in developing and underdeveloped societies). Since the Leninists’ interest was on developed and semideveloped countries, Gramsci navel gazed in his prison cell (he had been imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926) on the causes of the failure of Bolshevism in developed and semideveloped nations. He concluded it was due to what he called “Cultural Hegemony”, that is, the cultural control by the socio-economic-political dominant sectors over the “masses” in non-socialist and non-communist societies into making accept and even cheer for free-entrepreneurship (i.e., “capitalism”). The tools used to implement such control were, he “discovered”, one or more conventionally parliamentary political parties, the media, academia, the intelligentsia, the arts and entertainment, and organized religion (note: organized labor was by that time already in hardcore-Left hands). Thus he proposed to turn the tables, that is Cultural Hegemony inversion, by snatching those tools of societal control off the hands of the right to, in parallel, work in support of the gradualism that the first serious revisionist of Marxism, Eduard Bernstein, proposed to –by using the innate tools of democracy via a continual flow of reforms, legislation and regulation– usher society towards Marxist (i.e., classless and internationalist) socialism as a steppingstone to Marx’s “ultimate aim”, Marxist (i.e., stateless and world) communism . (Bernstein actually opposed the ides of “ultimate aims”, for to him, there was no end to the “progress” of society, maybe due to an atavistic hiccup of Marxist historical materialism. The point to make here is, however, that the takeover of the media by the hardcore-Left was due to ideology and doctrine mixed with praxis, having nothing to to with venatlity. Of course, venal scoundrels exist in all walks of life; “paymasters” have little, if not nothing, to do with the media’s –at least among most of them– leftist behavior; they are but –softcore and hardcore– utter leftist operatives…and ideology and doctrine are much more to defeat than venality.

  • Taurnil Oronar

    As you point out, it is those paymasters pulling the strings. It is my belief those paymasters have always been there and our founding fathers knew this, causing them great debate of what exactly to do with the press.

    What we are seeing today in the media is no different than during the early days of our new country. Like then as today there are many in our country strongly opposed to our founding principles and working diligently at its overthrow.

    What is different today is how “news” is disseminated vis-a-vis the Internet plays a huge roll. By that same tool, unlike times in past access to dig, the ability by the individual to find information and get it out is unprecedented.

    But that too will be censored by businesses and our totalitarian government.